Posted at 10.14.2018
In ELT Journal 64/4, in this article Immersion and CLIL in British: more dissimilarities than similarities David Lasagabaster and Juan Manuel Sierra (2010) declare that these two brands are shown as being one; in reality they have significantly more variations than similarities. The article is split into two topics, similarities between CLIL and Immersion and Variations between both. Because it is arguable which one is the best for our useful classes as a professor or if CLIL and Immersion will be the same solutions, after working with the content of this article I'll consider several reasons why CLIL and Immersion are, in ways, different.
Concerning similarities between these strategies, Lasagabaster and Sierra package with different explanations about CLIL and Immersion to convey that they are being used indiscriminately confusing phrase. Firstly, quoting Marsh (2002) Lasagabaster and Sierra say CLIL, which is employed as a medium in teaching and learning a dialect, differs from Bilingual or Immersion education. The next definition about CLIL and Immersion handles its insufficient familiarity for instructors and learners. Finally, those who identify CLIL and Immersion dispute that it is quite the same. On the other hand, Lasagabaster and Sierra conclude that CLIL and Immersion have significantly more dissimilarities than similarities. Revise the complete paragraph. Are you actually giving definitions?
According to David Lasagabaster and Juan Sierra, there are a few key points that CLIL and Immersion both encompass idea?. The first one is related to the level that students reach in both the L1 and L2 how about this?. Second of all, the terminology that students learn should be new for the kids. Thirdly, the teaching personnel should be bilingual, in order to implement the programme with the best make sure of success. And last but not least, the communicative procedure is the fundamental one in these procedures. It is because the objective is to acquire effective communication and for that it is fundamental to truly have a learning environment that motivates students. Revise first part of paragraph. Really confusing! I trust these guidelines and I consider that both programs are the best methods to consider for our classes. Because through them Students are likely to learn more if they're not simply learning dialect for language's sake, but using vocabulary to accomplish concrete tasks and find out new content. Also, by guiding students through experiments or activities that relate directly to their lives and neighborhoods, and concentrating on the learning of content, vocabulary learning is really maximized.
Another concern that the authors point out is the dissimilarities between both programmes. Lasagabaster and Sierra claim that you can find dissimilarity in several aspects, such as Vocabulary of instruction, Teacher staff, Coaching materials, Language goals, foreign students, and etcetera. Based on the Language of training, the writers say that the terminology used in CLIL is not language spoken locally different from Immersion programmes in which the words used is one which refers to the student's immediate context (home, contemporary society, etc). PC? Taking into account the aspect of the Tutor, Lasagabaster and Sierra consider that educators in Immersion programmes are mostly local speakers plus they have a fantastic demand of the terminology, the materials used in this programmes are mostly targeted at native audio speakers and in terms objectives, the purpose of Immersion programs is to attain skills in L2 a lot like native loudspeakers, whereas this isn't usually the situation in CLIL programmes. Revise punctuation and company first part I think that CLIL and Immersion are very different. Immersion programs are successful in assisting student's skills in language; therefore much stress is put on communication skills. Alternatively, CLIL is an instrument for coaching and learning of content and vocabulary at the same time. Therefore, Here the target is not in mere in communication skills but also in listening, writing and reading ones idea?. I consider that for our educational context the best procedure is CLIL because the target in the universities is never to teach English as native vocabulary like Immersion does
In overview, the CLIL way is due to Immersion programmes and apart from that it is very important to tell apart between these two types of programs because the differences are impressive revise cohesion. I agree with the authors, Personally i think that teachers need to know the dissimilarities between both of these programmes to be able not to use them indiscriminately. But also, I consider that instructors have to bear in mind in which educational context these are in order to work with the correct way.
Lasagabaster, D and Sierra, J M. 2010 Immersion and CLIL in English: more variations than similarities. ELT. Journal Volume 64/4
In nowadays life, professors often find the word CLIL and Immersion interchangeable even though there are essential distinctions. On ELT Journal 64/4, in the article Immersion and CLIL in British: more dissimilarities than similarities David Lasagabaster and Juan Manuel Sierra (2010) declare that these two labels are shown as being one; in reality they have significantly more distinctions than similarities. In this article David Lasagabaster and Juan Manuel Sierra style make a strong and effective point about the difference between both programmes.
In this article, Lasagabaster and Sierra take into account different meanings about CLIL and Immersion to convey that they are being used indiscriminately. The writers clarify that CLIL identifies teaching themes such as research, history and geography to students through a foreign language. This is by the English instructor using cross-curricular content or the subject teacher using English as the words of instruction. On the other hand, the idea of immersion approaches package with the introduction of student's mother tongue on the same level as those who find themselves native speakers. Taking into account these meanings we can understand that both programs have something in keeping, but we've differences too. Regarding CLIL we use the common life words to connect in British, on the other hand, Immersion's goal is to speak English as a local speaker.
According to David Lasagabaster and Juan Sierra, there are some concepts that CLIL and Immersion show. The first one relates to the level that students reach in both L1 and L2 because students use the second vocabulary as their terminology of work and communication and develop intercultural competencies and multidimensional subject- specific knowledge at exactly the same time. Secondly, the terminology that students learn should be new for the kids. Children should be inspired to draw on their knowledge about words to make sense of new principles. Thirdly, the teaching staff should be bilingual, in order to put into practice the program with the best warrant of success. And last but not least, the communicative strategy is the fundamental one in these procedures. For the reason that the objective is to obtain effective communication and for that it is fundamental to truly have a learning environment that motivates students. I trust these ideas and I consider that both programmes are the best approaches to take into account for our classes. Because through them students will probably learn more if they're not only learning vocabulary for language's sake, but using terminology to accomplish concrete tasks and find out new content. Also, by guiding students through tests or activities that associate right to their lives and areas, and concentrating on the learning of content, vocabulary learning is in fact maximized.
Another concern that the writers showcase is the differences between both programmes. Lasagabaster and Sierra declare that there is certainly dissimilarity in several aspects, such as terminology of instruction, tutor staff, teaching materials, language objectives, foreign students, etc. As regard language of education, the writers say that the words found in CLIL is not language spoken locally not the same as Immersion programmes where the language used is the one which identifies the student's immediate context (home, culture, etc). Regarding to Lasagabaster and Sierra consider that professors in Immersion programmes are mostly indigenous speakers plus they have an excellent command of the language. When the authors make reference to the materials found in these programmes, they state that these are mostly aimed at native speaker systems. With esteem of language goals, the purpose of Immersion programmes is to attain proficiency in L2 similar to native sound system, whereas this isn't usually the case in CLIL programmes.
I feel that CLIL and Immersion are quite different. Immersion programmes are successful in helping student's proficiency in language; as a result much emphasis is located on communication skills. On the other hand, CLIL is an instrument for coaching and learning content and terms at the same time. Therefore, in CLIL programs the goal isn't only in communication skill but also in tuning in, writing and reading skills. I consider that for our educational context the best way is CLIL because the goal in universities is not to teach English as native dialect like Immersion does
In brief summary, CLIL strategy and Immersion programs have some guidelines in common, however the differences are remarkable. I buy into the authors, Personally i think that teachers need to know the differences between both of these programmes in order not to use them indiscriminately. But also, I consider that educators have to bear in mind where educational context they are simply in order to use the correct procedure.